Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

Hi,

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:57:25 +0100 (CET)
Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
<snip>


> I think NDproxy is one option - option for clueless users how just connect 
> their devices directly on the CPE wired/or wireless and not configuring 
> any VLANs or subnets.
> 
> I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this category. 
> More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) could be 
> offered to the rest of the users...
> 
> I think ND proxy could be used for mass IPv6 broadband deployment:
> - no configuration required from end users on their router box if NDproxy 
> is supported and switched on by default.
> 

Existing IPv4 ADSL routers (at least the ones I see here in .au) come
with routing enabled, a single subnet behind the device (which may be
a bridged wired/wireless/USB segment), and a DHCP server (and NAT of
course). Customers don't seem to have any trouble with that setup,
because the CPE comes configured to operate that way. The only
interaction a customer might have is to type their assigned PPPoE/A
username/password in, and that is commonly automated via a setup CD,
rather than via the Web interface on the device.

I can't really see any reasons why residential IPv6 CPE needs to be
much different.

Regards,
Mark.